Even re-written by hand isn't the same because a hand re-write proceeds slower over a longer period of time with more smaller updates that get tested somewhat along the way.

Also I don't think it's wrong to use an action as an input to judging engineering character. That could be read as judging yt-dlp or judging bun but in this case I mean it's reasonable to judge bun's developers.

IDK if i'd personally judge this action quite so badly though. It depends how they went about it and what they proffessed to get out of it.

I am very much against letting llms think and decide for you, but I don't think it's so wrong for an actual coder to employ automation.

But if they are acting like it's magic and everything will be so much better after the magic llm uses the magic safe language... yeah that definitely gets the side eye. Or no eye. Just no longer interested in or concerned with their output.

Since this is being offered as the next release version while still being new and stuffed with unsafe, looks like it's the latter. So I'm with yt-dlp in this case.

It doesn't matter if the new code happens to be ok or not, it's still a problem that they got there by hoping a black box does the right thing. A black box that that no one wrote and no one understands, not just themselves.

gcc is a black box to me, but I know that someone wrote it and understands it (or some people collectively understand all it's parts), and I know that any time I want, I can choose to understand any part of it, and satisfy myself that it is doing something both sane and deterministic.

So a developer choosing to use gcc when it's a black box to them does not reflect badly on them to me.

But no one can say that about any llm or ai. So yeah, a developer choosing to use them, depending on exactly how, may reflect badly on them.

The same was true for cheap off-shore gig coding by humans too. I have tried to use them myself in the past, hire out for small generic programming jobs using those web sites where you put up some escrow money and post a job and people bid for it, you choose one, they do it and get paid from the escrow. I only tried about 3 times for the same small job and every time I git ridiculously shit (but technically functional) results.

These were humans 15-20 years ago, no possibility of hidden ai usage like today, and it's essentially the same dynamic of just hoping some magic will get you something good for cheap, and accepting any result that appears good as good.

If someone said that that's how they made their product, I would decide that product is probably pretty crap inside and no way should I buy it or invest in it as a dependency if I have any choice.

And that's humans not ai. The problem isn't really the ai, it's the judgement to use an ai that way.